SepsisNCT02747121
Effects of External Inspection on Sepsis Detection and Treatment
A study testing External inspection of health services in people with Sepsis, run by Norwegian Board of Health Supervision at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
External inspections are widely used as means to improve the quality of care. Despite their widespread use, there is limited knowledge about whether and how they affect the quality of care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Sepsis
- What is being tested?
- External inspection of health services
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 7,407 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- Apr 2016to Dec 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Suspected infection and minimum 2 SIRS criteria. If high leucocytes are one of the two criteria, then 3 SIRS criteria are needed.
Who cannot join
- Patients below the age of 18 years.
- Patients who do not pass through the emergency room.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
External inspections are widely used as means to improve the quality of care. Despite their widespread use, there is limited knowledge about whether and how they affect the quality of care. This study uses inspection with detection and treatment of sepsis in hospitals as a case to evaluate the effect of inspections on the quality of care and to explore how inspections affect the hospitals.
Read the detailed description
The aim of this study is to assess what effect external inspections have on the quality of care provided to sepsis patients admitted to hospital and to explore how external inspections affect the involved organizations.
External inspections are widely used as a means to improve the quality of care, and it is a core element of regulatory regimes and certification and accreditation processes. The activity of assessing a health care organization's performance according to an externally defined standard has been described by partly overlapping terms such as external inspection, external review, supervision, and audit. The project uses the term external inspection implying that the inspection is initiated and controlled by an organization external to the one being inspected; and define it as: "a system, process or arrangement in which some dimensions or characteristics of a healthcare provider organisation and its activities are assessed or analysed against a framework of ideas, knowledge, or measures derived or developed outside that organisation".
In line with this definition the investigator intend to study how external inspection affect the quality of care provided on an organizational level. The project does not intend to study how external inspections can affect individuals in the organization nor individual professional development. The investigator takes the perspective that quality of care can be considered a system property, being dependent on how the organization providing care performs as a whole. Accordingly, improving the quality of care is dependent on changing the performance of the organization, which in turn implies change in organizational behavior and the way clinicians mutually interact and perform their clinical processes. Change in organizational behavior is a complex social process that involves a number of different practices on different organizational levels. If external inspection has the ability to contribute to improve the quality of care on an organizational level, it need to affect the practices involved in organizational change.
The effect of external inspection systems on the quality of care remains unclear and the evidence is contradictory. Studies have demonstrated a positive association between accreditation and the ability to promote change, professional development, quality systems, and clinical leadership. There is evidence to support an association between inspections and different quality outcomes e.g. reduced incidence of pressure ulcer and suicide. There are however also studies reporting that inspections have no impact on the quality of care. Inspection systems are widely used and much resources are spent on such systems worldwide. More knowledge about how and whether external inspections can effect the quality of care is needed.
The inspection process can be considered a complex intervention consisting of a set of activities that are introduced into varying organizational contexts. The inspection itself does not have a direct impact on the quality of care. If the inspection encounters non-compliant behavior, the inspected organization is responsible for implementing necessary changes. The way the inspection process affects the involved organization will thus influence how the inspected organizations pursue the following change process. The way external inspections affect the involved organization, is currently poorly understood. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms for how inspection systems might contribute to improve the quality of care is needed. Such knowledge can improve the understanding of why effects of external inspections seem to vary, which in turn can facilitate the development of more effective ways of conducting inspections.
The study uses external inspections of sepsis detection and treatment in hospitals as a case to explore how inspections affect the involved organizations and to evaluate their effect on the quality of care. Sepsis is a prevalent disease and one of the main causes of death among hospitalized patients internationally and in Norway. Former external inspections of Norwegian hospitals have showed that insufficient governance of clinical process in the emergency room could have severe consequences for patients admitted to hospital with undiagnosed sepsis. During recent years, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has investigated a number of cases in which the hospitals had not provided care in line with the recommended guidelines for sepsis treatment. On this background, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has decided to conduct a nationwide inspection campaign with sepsis detection and treatment in acute hospitals during 2016-2017.
Early treatment with antibiotics along with compliance to treatment guidelines is associated with reduced mortality for sepsis patients. International studies have shown that compliance with treatment guidelines varies, and that improved compliance can improve patient outcomes. External inspection can identify sub-optimal compliance with treatment guidelines. Improved compliance with treatment guidelines is dependent on change in organizational practice. Such changes in organizational practice can be measured using process indicators that are indicative and sensitive for changes in the key areas identified during the inspection. The study uses process measures to assess how external inspections affect guideline adherence. Because improved guideline adherence has been demonstrated to improve the quality of care in terms of reduced mortality, it can be argued that this is an expedient case for evaluating how external inspections can affect the quality of care.
- Conditions
- Sepsis
- Being tested
- External inspection of health services
- Keywords
- External inspections
- Medical subject headings
- Sepsis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
External inspection of health servicesBehavioural
The intervention is external inspections of acute hospitals addressing early detection and treatment of sepsis. The intervention is delivered on an organizational level. Individuals are not assigned to an intervention. The investigator use data from individuals to assess if the organizational intervention affects care. Therefore the investigator argues that that the study is observational. The inspection will have two components, a system revision and a follow up audit with verification of patient records 8 months later. The inspection can be considered a complex intervention. The study does not intend to evaluate the individual effects of the different components of the inspection, rather the effect of the inspection as a whole.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control before intervention | Other | External inspection of health services. The intervention is external inspection of sepsis detection and treatment. The intervention is delivered on the organizational Level. Patient are not assigned to the intervention. The intervention is rolled out sequentially to 24 hospitals. We collect data at base line, before the inspections and 8 and 14 month after the inspections. The first arm is the Control period before the inspections. Receives: Behavioral: External inspection of health services |
| Intervention | Experimental | External inspection of health services. We compare the effect measures before and after the inspection. The intervention arm is data after the hospitals have received the inspection. Receives: Behavioral: External inspection of health services |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Sepsis Patients With 30 Days Mortality
We will still use 30-day mortality rate as our outcome measure. The new international sepsis definition will over time affect coding practice and we can therefore not use routine data from the National Patient Register to calculate the mortality rate. We will calculate the mortality rate based on the patient population we include in the study. We will compare mortality rates before and after the inspections.
Measured: 30 days
Secondary outcomes (1)
Hospital Length of Stay
Mean time for hospital length of stay before and after inspections
Measured: Exact number of days for the length of stay was collected from the National Patient Registry. Since the outcome measure is length of stay, the time frame varies between patients. Time frame for observation periode was at least 12 months for each patient.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Apr 2016 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2016
- Primary completionDec 2020
- Study completionDec 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (21)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for SepsisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- The intervention will be rolled out sequentially during 12 months to 24 hospitals, with six clusters of four geographically close hospitals. We collect data before and after the inspections.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 7,407 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Norwegian Board of Health Supervision
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Collaborators
- University of Bergen, Norwegian Institute of Public Health
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jan Fredrik Andresen, MD, Study chair, Head of Norwegian Board of Health Supervision
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02747121
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2015/2195 REK number
- Status last verified
- Jan 2022
- First submitted
- 11 Apr 2016
- Last updated
- 24 Mar 2022
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: In line with the ethical approval data is not to be shared outside the research group
Publications
Walshe K, Wallace L, Freeman T, Latham L, Spurgeon P. The external review of quality improvement in health care organizations: a qualitative study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Oct;13(5):367-74. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.5.367.
PubMed 11669564van Dishoeck AM, Oude Wesselink SF, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg E, Robben PB, Mackenbach JP. [Transparency: can the effect of governmental surveillance be quantified?]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(16):A1676. Dutch.
PubMed 23594866Shaw CD, Braithwaite J, Moldovan M, Nicklin W, Grgic I, Fortune T, Whittaker S. Profiling health-care accreditation organizations: an international survey. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 Jul;25(3):222-31. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt011. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
PubMed 23411832Oude Wesselink SF, Lingsma HF, Reulings PG, Wentzel HR, Erasmus V, Robben PB, Mackenbach JP. Does government supervision improve stop-smoking counseling in midwifery practices? Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 May;17(5):572-9. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu190. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
PubMed 25239965Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625. No abstract available.
PubMed 11557716Miller RR 3rd, Dong L, Nelson NC, Brown SM, Kuttler KG, Probst DR, Allen TL, Clemmer TP; Intermountain Healthcare Intensive Medicine Clinical Program. Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul 1;188(1):77-82. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201212-2199OC.
PubMed 23631750Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, Osborn T, Lemeshow S, Chiche JD, Artigas A, Dellinger RP. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):3-12. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000723.
PubMed 25275252Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, Schorr C, Artigas A, Ramsay G, Beale R, Parker MM, Gerlach H, Reinhart K, Silva E, Harvey M, Regan S, Angus DC; Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):367-74. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cb0cdc.
PubMed 20035219Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/
PubMed 25057539Gatewood MO, Wemple M, Greco S, Kritek PA, Durvasula R. A quality improvement project to improve early sepsis care in the emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Dec;24(12):787-95. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003552. Epub 2015 Aug 6.
PubMed 26251506Flodgren G, Pomey MP, Taber SA, Eccles MP. Effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Nov 9;(11):CD008992. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008992.pub2.
PubMed 22071861Flaatten H. Epidemiology of sepsis in Norway in 1999. Crit Care. 2004 Aug;8(4):R180-4. doi: 10.1186/cc2867. Epub 2004 May 14.
PubMed 15312216Ferrer R, Artigas A, Levy MM, Blanco J, Gonzalez-Diaz G, Garnacho-Montero J, Ibanez J, Palencia E, Quintana M, de la Torre-Prados MV; Edusepsis Study Group. Improvement in process of care and outcome after a multicenter severe sepsis educational program in Spain. JAMA. 2008 May 21;299(19):2294-303. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.19.2294.
PubMed 18492971Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694. No abstract available.
PubMed 10987780Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988 Sep 23-30;260(12):1743-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.260.12.1743.
PubMed 3045356
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Mar 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of External Inspection on Sepsis Detection and Treatment
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02747121
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2015/2195 REK number
- Conditions
- Sepsis
- Keywords
- External inspections
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 7,407 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Norwegian Board of Health SupervisionOther government
- Collaborators
- University of Bergen, Norwegian Institute of Public Health
- Study start
- Apr 2016
- Primary completion
- Dec 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Apr 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 24 Mar 2022
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
External inspections are widely used as means to improve the quality of care. Despite their widespread use, there is limited knowledge about whether and how they affect the quality of care. This study uses inspection with detection and treatment of sepsis in hospitals as a case to evaluate the effect of inspections on the quality of care and to explore how inspections affect the hospitals.
Detailed description
The aim of this study is to assess what effect external inspections have on the quality of care provided to sepsis patients admitted to hospital and to explore how external inspections affect the involved organizations.
External inspections are widely used as a means to improve the quality of care, and it is a core element of regulatory regimes and certification and accreditation processes. The activity of assessing a health care organization's performance according to an externally defined standard has been described by partly overlapping terms such as external inspection, external review, supervision, and audit. The project uses the term external inspection implying that the inspection is initiated and controlled by an organization external to the one being inspected; and define it as: "a system, process or arrangement in which some dimensions or characteristics of a healthcare provider organisation and its activities are assessed or analysed against a framework of ideas, knowledge, or measures derived or developed outside that organisation".
In line with this definition the investigator intend to study how external inspection affect the quality of care provided on an organizational level. The project does not intend to study how external inspections can affect individuals in the organization nor individual professional development. The investigator takes the perspective that quality of care can be considered a system property, being dependent on how the organization providing care performs as a whole. Accordingly, improving the quality of care is dependent on changing the performance of the organization, which in turn implies change in organizational behavior and the way clinicians mutually interact and perform their clinical processes. Change in organizational behavior is a complex social process that involves a number of different practices on different organizational levels. If external inspection has the ability to contribute to improve the quality of care on an organizational level, it need to affect the practices involved in organizational change.
The effect of external inspection systems on the quality of care remains unclear and the evidence is contradictory. Studies have demonstrated a positive association between accreditation and the ability to promote change, professional development, quality systems, and clinical leadership. There is evidence to support an association between inspections and different quality outcomes e.g. reduced incidence of pressure ulcer and suicide. There are however also studies reporting that inspections have no impact on the quality of care. Inspection systems are widely used and much resources are spent on such systems worldwide. More knowledge about how and whether external inspections can effect the quality of care is needed.
The inspection process can be considered a complex intervention consisting of a set of activities that are introduced into varying organizational contexts. The inspection itself does not have a direct impact on the quality of care. If the inspection encounters non-compliant behavior, the inspected organization is responsible for implementing necessary changes. The way the inspection process affects the involved organization will thus influence how the inspected organizations pursue the following change process. The way external inspections affect the involved organization, is currently poorly understood. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms for how inspection systems might contribute to improve the quality of care is needed. Such knowledge can improve the understanding of why effects of external inspections seem to vary, which in turn can facilitate the development of more effective ways of conducting inspections.
The study uses external inspections of sepsis detection and treatment in hospitals as a case to explore how inspections affect the involved organizations and to evaluate their effect on the quality of care. Sepsis is a prevalent disease and one of the main causes of death among hospitalized patients internationally and in Norway. Former external inspections of Norwegian hospitals have showed that insufficient governance of clinical process in the emergency room could have severe consequences for patients admitted to hospital with undiagnosed sepsis. During recent years, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has investigated a number of cases in which the hospitals had not provided care in line with the recommended guidelines for sepsis treatment. On this background, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has decided to conduct a nationwide inspection campaign with sepsis detection and treatment in acute hospitals during 2016-2017.
Early treatment with antibiotics along with compliance to treatment guidelines is associated with reduced mortality for sepsis patients. International studies have shown that compliance with treatment guidelines varies, and that improved compliance can improve patient outcomes. External inspection can identify sub-optimal compliance with treatment guidelines. Improved compliance with treatment guidelines is dependent on change in organizational practice. Such changes in organizational practice can be measured using process indicators that are indicative and sensitive for changes in the key areas identified during the inspection. The study uses process measures to assess how external inspections affect guideline adherence. Because improved guideline adherence has been demonstrated to improve the quality of care in terms of reduced mortality, it can be argued that this is an expedient case for evaluating how external inspections can affect the quality of care.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The intervention will be rolled out sequentially during 12 months to 24 hospitals, with six clusters of four geographically close hospitals. We collect data before and after the inspections.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control before intervention | Other | Behavioral: External inspection of health servicesExternal inspection of health services. The intervention is external inspection of sepsis detection and treatment. The intervention is delivered on the organizational Level. Patient are not assigned to the intervention. The intervention is rolled out sequentially to 24 hospitals. We collect data at base line, before the inspections and 8 and 14 month after the inspections. The first arm is the Control period before the inspections. |
| Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: External inspection of health servicesExternal inspection of health services. We compare the effect measures before and after the inspection. The intervention arm is data after the hospitals have received the inspection. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Suspected infection and minimum 2 SIRS criteria. If high leucocytes are one of the two criteria, then 3 SIRS criteria are needed.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Patients below the age of 18 years.
- Patients who do not pass through the emergency room.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| External inspection of health servicesThe intervention is external inspections of acute hospitals addressing early detection and treatment of sepsis. The intervention is delivered on an organizational level. Individuals are not assigned to an intervention. The investigator use data from individuals to assess if the organizational intervention affects care. Therefore the investigator argues that that the study is observational. The inspection will have two components, a system revision and a follow up audit with verification of patient records 8 months later. The inspection can be considered a complex intervention. The study does not intend to evaluate the individual effects of the different components of the inspection, rather the effect of the inspection as a whole. | Behavioural | Control before intervention, Intervention |
Primary outcome
Number of Sepsis Patients With 30 Days Mortality
Time frame: 30 days
We will still use 30-day mortality rate as our outcome measure. The new international sepsis definition will over time affect coding practice and we can therefore not use routine data from the National Patient Register to calculate the mortality rate. We will calculate the mortality rate based on the patient population we include in the study. We will compare mortality rates before and after the inspections.
1 secondary outcome
Hospital Length of Stay
Time frame: Exact number of days for the length of stay was collected from the National Patient Registry. Since the outcome measure is length of stay, the time frame varies between patients. Time frame for observation periode was at least 12 months for each patient.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Mar 2022.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 11669564Walshe K, Wallace L, Freeman T, Latham L, Spurgeon P. The external review of quality improvement in health care organizations: a qualitative study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Oct;13(5):367-74. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.5.367.
- Background: PubMed 23594866van Dishoeck AM, Oude Wesselink SF, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg E, Robben PB, Mackenbach JP. [Transparency: can the effect of governmental surveillance be quantified?]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(16):A1676. Dutch.
- Background: PubMed 23411832Shaw CD, Braithwaite J, Moldovan M, Nicklin W, Grgic I, Fortune T, Whittaker S. Profiling health-care accreditation organizations: an international survey. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013 Jul;25(3):222-31. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzt011. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 25239965Oude Wesselink SF, Lingsma HF, Reulings PG, Wentzel HR, Erasmus V, Robben PB, Mackenbach JP. Does government supervision improve stop-smoking counseling in midwifery practices? Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 May;17(5):572-9. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu190. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
- Background: PubMed 11557716Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23631750Miller RR 3rd, Dong L, Nelson NC, Brown SM, Kuttler KG, Probst DR, Allen TL, Clemmer TP; Intermountain Healthcare Intensive Medicine Clinical Program. Multicenter implementation of a severe sepsis and septic shock treatment bundle. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Jul 1;188(1):77-82. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201212-2199OC.
- Background: PubMed 25275252Levy MM, Rhodes A, Phillips GS, Townsend SR, Schorr CA, Beale R, Osborn T, Lemeshow S, Chiche JD, Artigas A, Dellinger RP. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: association between performance metrics and outcomes in a 7.5-year study. Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):3-12. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000723.
- Background: PubMed 20035219Levy MM, Dellinger RP, Townsend SR, Linde-Zwirble WT, Marshall JC, Bion J, Schorr C, Artigas A, Ramsay G, Beale R, Parker MM, Gerlach H, Reinhart K, Silva E, Harvey M, Regan S, Angus DC; Surviving Sepsis Campaign. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: results of an international guideline-based performance improvement program targeting severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):367-74. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181cb0cdc.
- Background: PubMed 25057539Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222274/
- Background: PubMed 26251506Gatewood MO, Wemple M, Greco S, Kritek PA, Durvasula R. A quality improvement project to improve early sepsis care in the emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Dec;24(12):787-95. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003552. Epub 2015 Aug 6.
- Background: PubMed 22071861Flodgren G, Pomey MP, Taber SA, Eccles MP. Effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Nov 9;(11):CD008992. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008992.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 15312216Flaatten H. Epidemiology of sepsis in Norway in 1999. Crit Care. 2004 Aug;8(4):R180-4. doi: 10.1186/cc2867. Epub 2004 May 14.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. In line with the ethical approval data is not to be shared outside the research group
Related trials for Sepsis
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Pivotal Safety and Immunogenicity GBS-NN/NN2 Vaccine Maternal Immunisation Trial
Streptococcus Agalactiae Infection, Neonatal Sepsis
Active, not recruiting
CT for Personalized Mechanical Ventilation
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury, Sepsis Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 4
A Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Extended and Intermittent Infusion of Beta-lactams in Critically Ill Paediatric Patients
Infection, Sepsis
Not yet recruiting
Double Plasma Separation and Adsorption in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (DPMAS-ACLF Trial)
Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (ACLF)
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Thymosin Alpha 1 and IgM Levels in Sepsis
Sepsis, Septic Shock
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jan Fredrik Andresen, MD study chair
Head of Norwegian Board of Health Supervision
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing External inspection of health services in people with Sepsis, run by Norwegian Board of Health Supervision at 1 site in Norway.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Mar 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Norway. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 Mar 2022). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of Sepsis Patients With 30 Days Mortality (time frame: 30 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02747121, which also lists 21 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Mar 2022.